In Physics Today 58, 7, 20 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4797140, West and Brown reply to Bejan’s comparison of their scaling work to constructal law in the same issue of Physics Today.

WBE 1997 in the following refers to A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology, in Science 1997, vol. 276.

West and Brown write in their 2005 Physics Today reply to Bejan: The theory we developed with Brian Enquist [in WBE 1997 and subsequent articles] on the origins, implications, and ramifications of universal scaling laws in biology ... is predicated on the idea that life at all scales is sustained by optimized, space-filling, hierarchical branching networks whose terminal units are invariant.

There is a good argument that the premise, `optimized, space-filling, hierarchical branching networks’ is itself a consequence of the principle of dimensional capacity and there are doubts about the terminal units invariance assumption (Kozlowski, J. and Konarzewski, M., 2004, Is West, Brown and Enquist's model of allometric scaling mathematically correct and biologically relevant?).

For those reasons, comparing constructal law to the attributes and implications of the principle of dimensional capacity might lead to mutually reinforcing ideas. Which prompts the discussion question here posed.